The Weekly Shtikle - Nitzavim / Rosh HaShanah

One of the themes of this week's parsha is that of teshuvah, repentance, a perfect preparation for the days ahead. After the pesukim dealing with the harsh punishments of the man, woman, family or tribe who "goes his own way," we are told of all the good that is bestowed upon us when we return to HaShem.

 

Perek 30 begins, "And it shall be when these things come upon you, the blessings and the curses which I have put before you...And you shall return to HaShem, your God." It is common, especially at this time, to look back and reflect on recent tragedies - those that affect us personally or as a nation more directly, such as the passing of a loved one or the trials and tribulations endured by our brethren in Eretz Yisrael, and those that might seem to affect us less directly, such as various world events - and try to understand it as HaShem's call for us to do teshuvah. It is certainly not uncommon for such events to be invoked in a Rosh HaShanah or Shabbas Shuva drasha.

 

I am not coming to discount this practice. However, there is a small yet important nuance in the above passage that might easily be overlooked in this process. It is not merely the curses - the tragedies and misfortunes - that are meant to be catalysts to our repentance. The berachah, the blessings and the good fortune are meant to serve the same purpose. It is simply insufficient to look back at the tough times that befell us, either personally or nationally, and declare "God was telling us something." We must also reflect upon the wonderful blessings we have enjoyed, for He was telling us something then too. Appreciating the love and the Divine Providence with which our lives are governed, can and should lead us to teshuvah just the same.

 

Have a good Shabbos and a kesivah vachasimah tovah.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Name of the parsha

Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites, www.weeklyshtikle.com

The Weekly Shtikle and related content are now featured on BaltimoreJewishLife.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Ki Savo

B'nei Yisrael are commanded (27:4) that after they cross the Yardein they are to set down the rocks on Har Eival, etc. In the gemara Sanhedrin 44a, R' Shaila teaches that Yehoshua did not act accordingly as the pasuk instructed to perform this ceremony immediately after crossing the Yardein but he travelled for 60 mil. Tosafos asks an obvious question. B'nei Yisrael were clearly commanded to follow these proceedings on Har Grizim and Har Eival. Is it Yehoshua's fault that these mountains were 60 mil from the Yardein?

Tosafos puts together a rather creative answer. In the gemara (Sotah 33b) there is a dispute between R' Yehuda and R' Elazar. R' Yehuda holds that Har Grizim and Eival were far away from the Yardein while R' Elazar holds that they were right next to it. Tosafos explains that R' Elazar holds that there were two sets of mountains and that they carried out the commandment on the closer one. The Yerushalmi states that according to R' Elazar, they actually built two mountains upon crossing the Yardein and called one Grizim and one Eival. Tosafos explains that R' Shaila here is of the opinion that the commandment to B'nei Yisrael follows R' Elazar's interpretation and was supposed to be carried out on the nearer mountain. What they in fact did in practice follows R' Yehuda's interpretation and that is why Yehoshua is rebuked for having delayed 60 mil. He was expected to have performed the ritual on the nearer set of mountains.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:
Al Pi Cheshbon: Balancing the Shevatim at Har Gerizim and Har Eival
Dikdukian: Tough Day at the Office

Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites, www.weeklyshtikle.com

The Weekly Shtikle and related content are now featured on BaltimoreJewishLife.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Ki Seitzei

In this week's parsha, (23:5), we are told that an Amonite and Moavite are not allowed to come bikhal HaShem, that a convert from Amon or Moav may not marry into B'nei Yisrael. The reasons given are because they did not come forth with bread and water as we passed their land and for their hiring of Bilam to curse us. The question that is asked by many of the commentaries is that in 2:29, and particularly with the explanation of Rashi, it seems that Edom and Moav both provided B'nei Yisrael with bread and water, albeit with a price. Also, we do not see in the pesukim anywhere that Amon had anything to do with the hiring of Bilam. There is much discussion amongst the commentaries concerning this question. I will focus on the answer of the Sma"g. He simply interprets the pasuk as giving one reason for each nation. The Amonites are forbidden to marry into our nation because they did not come forth with bread and water. The Moavites are forbidden for their involvement in the hiring of Bilam.

The problem with this interpretation, however, is that in the gemara Yevamos 76b we learn that women are excluded from this prohibition. We learn this because the reason of not having come forth with bread and water would not apply to women whose nature is not to come forth in that manner. It seems from there that this reason applies to both Amon and Moav, for the very subject of that gemara is David HaMelech's legitimacy based on Rus having been a Moavite convert. The only possible explanation for the Sma"g is that just like it is not the nature of women to go out and greet a nation with bread and water, it is not their nature to go out and hire hitmen. The only difficulty with this, of course, is that such a reasoning is not mentioned in the gemara itself. Nevertheless, the Rashba in Yevamos interprets the gemara in accordance with the Sma"g.

    Another interesting nuance in the pasuk is that the language used in the failure to bring bread and water is "asher lo kidmu eschem." B'nei Yisrael are referred to in plural. But in the hiring of Bilam it states "va'asher sachar alecha," referring to B'nei Yisrael in singular. I think that the explanation for this is that when Bilam was to curse B'nei Yisrael, it was to be done on the entire nation at once. Therefore, the nation is referred to in singular form. However, from the aforementioned gemara in Yevamos it seems that it was expected of the Amonites to come forth with the men giving food to the men, and the women to the women. Since they were expected to come and give individual attention to separate groups of B'nei Yisrael, they are referred to in the plural.

**********

 

Please see the following discussion concerning whether there is a need to fulfill the mitzvah of Zechiras Amaleik this shabbos.

 

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Weekly Shtikle: Mitzvas Zechiras Amaleik this week?

    Shiluach HaKein Game

Dikdukian: Shiluah Ha...

Dikdukian: Shva vs Kamatz by R' Ari Storch

Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites, www.weeklyshtikle.com

The Weekly Shtikle and related content are now featured on BaltimoreJewishLife.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Shofetim

There is a well-known precept in halachah that when faced with a safeik d'oraysa, an uncertainty regarding a Biblical decree, we are more stringent whereas with a safeik d'rabanan, an uncertainty regarding a rabbinic decree, we are lenient. There is a further discussion regarding safeik d'oraysa. The very fact that we lean on the stringent side - is that itself a Biblical decree or a later rabbinic institution? Rambam is of the opinion that it is a rabbinic decree but others argue that it is, in fact, Biblical.

A pasuk in this week's parsha seems to shed some light on the issue. We are taught later in the parsha that it is forbidden to cut down fruit-bearing trees for the purposes of a siege. Rather, (20:20) "only a tree that you know for certain is not fruit-bearing you may destroy and cut down."  Apparently, if you were uncertain as to whether or not it was a fruit-bearing tree, you would not be permitted to cut it down. This seems, at first glance, to contradict Rambam's position. If the stringency were only rabbinic, as Rambam suggests, then by Biblical standards we would be permitted to be lenient. We seem to be taught here that this is not the case.

However, points out Malbim, this pasuk is not as simple as it appears. The gemara from just over a week ago's daf yomi (Bava Kamma 91b) interprets this pasuk not to be referring to a tree about which we know nothing. Rather, it refers to a tree which was known to have previously been a fruit-bearing tree. The uncertainty is whether or not it has since lost its status as a fruit-bearing tree. This is a classic case of chazakah, an original prevailing status. When the original status is prohibitive, even Rambam will agree that we are stringent in a case of uncertainty as a Biblical edict. Therefore, this pasuk does not contradict Rambam's stated position in a case where there is no previous status.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Weekly Shtikle: Additional Symbolism of the Shofar

Dikdukian: Two of a Kind

Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites, www.weeklyshtikle.com

The Weekly Shtikle and related content are now featured on BaltimoreJewishLife.com

The Weekly Shtikle - Re'eih / Shabbas Rosh Chodesh Elul

There are some interesting nuances behind the haftarah that is read this week and consequently, that which is read in two weeks. This topic is covered rather thoroughly by R' Yehuda Spitz's Insights into Halacha but I wanted to take a somewhat different approach. As a matter of introduction, I want to point out a neat little trick that may not be so well-known. If one wishes to plan ahead, the days of Rosh Chodesh from month to month are always in perfect sequence. For example, Rosh Chodesh Tammuz was Wednesday and Thursday. Rosh Chodesh Av was Friday and Rosh Chodesh Elul, haba aleinu l'tovah, is Shabbos and Sunday. Rosh HaShanah is Monday. One need only be aware of which are one day long and which are two days. (And Rosh HaShanah must be treated as one day. Rosh Chodesh Cheshvan will be Tuesday and Wednesday.)

With the knowledge of that simple sequence, it is clear that a Shabbos Rosh Chodesh should happen rather regularly. However, the prescribed haftarah for Shabbos Rosh Chodesh, HaShamayim kis'I (Yeshaya 66) does not have a lot of halachic mazal. If the first of Tishrei is Shabbos, understandably, it is not read on Rosh HaShanah. If the first of Teves falls out on Shabbos, the haftarah for Chanukah is read instead. It is pushed off on Rosh Chodesh Adar for Shekalim and on Rosh Chodesh Nissan for HaChodesh. If Rosh Chodesh Av falls out on Shabbos, the appropriate Three Weeks haftarah is read.

We are now in the middle of a sequence of seven very specific haftaros of comfort, which are deemed to be of significant importance by the halachic authorities. If Rosh Chodesh Elul were to fall out on Sunday, are all in agreement that the usual haftarah of Machar chodesh is not read. Indeed, even tomorrow, the predominant sefardi custom is to once again push asid HaShamayim kis'i. But we Ashkenazim, based on Rema, will indeed read HaShamayim kis'i. I had wondered why this would be but when this occurred last year (and it will occur again in 2 and 3 years) I noticed that the reading of HaShamayim kis'I certainly contains words of comfort making it apropos as part of the seven week period following Tish'ah B'Av.

So what happens to the haftarah that we do not read tomorrow – Aniyah so'arah  (Yeshayah 54:11)? The text of the haftarah of Ki Seitzei is Rani akarah (Yeshayah 54:1-10) immediately precedes the text of this week's so we will simply read both together – a double haftarah, although it becomes identical to the single haftarah of Noach.

If you look at the seven special haftaros as a whole, they are all in sequential order from Sefer Yeshayah – with one exception. This week's skipped haftarah is out of order and I was always puzzled as to why that might be. It seems more than ironic that in years like this, the seven passages are read in perfect sequence. (The reading of HaShamayim kis'I, however, is from the very end of Yeshayah and is thus still out of order.) However, as R' Spitz himself conveyed to me via email, it is unlikely that this "shuffle" was the original intended to account for this situation because Abudarham,  who lays out the texts for the seven passages, does not even mention doubling any up. Perhaps by next year, when we read the usual haftarah of Re'eih, I will come up with a better reason for the order, or lack thereof.

Have a good Shabbos.

Eliezer Bulka
WeeklyShtikle@weeklyshtikle.com

Shtikle Blog Weekly Roundup:

Dikdukian: Jewish Milk

Please visit the new portal for all Shtikle-related sites, www.weeklyshtikle.com

The Weekly Shtikle and related content are now featured on BaltimoreJewishLife.com